Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-08-28 Planning & transportation commission Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Planning & Transportation Commission Regular Meeting Agenda: August 28, 2019 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 6:00 PM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. Introduction of New Chief Transportation Official and Overview of Transportation Priorities Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Fifteen (15) minutes, plus three (3) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 3. Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution to implement the Old Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program as a one-year pilot. 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 874 Boyce [18PLN-00030]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of An Ordinance to Amend Title 21, Chapter 20 to Allow for Creation of a Flag Lot Where the Residence on the Subject Lot to Be Subdivided Would be Protected Under a Historic Covenant as Well as Recommendation for Approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map With Exceptions to Subdivide One Lot to Create Two Lots. The Exceptions Are to Allow for A Narrower Front Lot Than Is Allowed Within the R-1 Zone District and To Allow for the _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Easements Serving the Rear Lot to be Greater Than 100 Feet. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Protection of the Environment) and 15332 (Infill Development). Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 Committee Items Commissioner Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Agenda Items Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Commissioner Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. The PTC Commission members are: Chair William Riggs Vice Chair Michael Alcheck Commissioner Ed Lauing Commissioner Giselle Roohparvar Commissioner Doria Summa Commissioner Carolyn Templeton Commissioner Asher Waldfogel Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Commission Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the PTC at: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM two Tuesdays preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 2:00 PM the day of the meeting will be presented to the Commission at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the PTC after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 10589) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 8/28/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Directors Report, Meeting Schedule and Assignments From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment as appropriate. Background This document includes the following items: • PTC Meeting Schedule • PTC Representative to City Council (Rotational Assignments) • Tentative Future Agenda Commissioners are encouraged to contact Yolanda Cervantes (Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org) of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure availability of a PTC quorum. PTC Representative to City Council is a rotational assignment where the designated commissioner represents the PTC’s affirmative and dissenting perspectives to Council for quasi- judicial and legislative matters. Representatives are encouraged to review the City Council agendas (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp) for the months of their respective assignments to verify if attendance is needed or contact staff. Prior PTC meetings are available online at http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards- and-commissions/planning-and-transportation-commission. The Tentative Future Agenda provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. Attachments: • Attachment A: August 28, 2019 PTC Meeting Schedule and Assignments (DOCX) Draft Planning & Transportation Commission 2019 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2019 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/30/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/13/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2/27/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 3/4/2019 11:00AM Community Meeting Room Special 3/13/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Roohparvar 3/27/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/10/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 4/24/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 5/08/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Riggs 5/29/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 6/12/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 6/26/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 7/10/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 7/31/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled 8/14/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular Asher Waldfogel 8/28/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/11/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 9/25/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/09/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 10/30/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 11/13/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 12/11/2019 6:00 PM Council Chambers Regular 2019 Assignments - Council Representation (primary/backup) January February March April May June Doria Summa Asher Waldfogel Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Giselle Roohparvar Doria Summa July August September October November December Giselle Roohparvar Doria Summa Asher Waldfogel Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Asher Waldfogel Michael Alcheck Billy Riggs Ed Lauing Cari Templeton Giselle Roohparvar Draft Planning & Transportation Commission 2019 Tentative Future Agenda August 21, 2019 Draft-All Dates and Topics Subject to Change The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics September 11, 2019 • 515 Lytton Ave: Request for Hearing on Variance Decision • 407 Lytton Ave: Request for Hearing on CUP Decision September 25, 2019 • 470 Olive Non-Conforming Use Exception To Be Scheduled: Topics Co-Working Office Model SB 50 Data Briefing Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 10610) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 8/28/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Transportation Overview Title: Introduction of New Chief Transportation Official and Overview of Transportation Priorities From: Jonathan Lait There is no report associated with this item. PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information Rachael Tanner, MCP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2167 Rachael.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 10613) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/28/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Old Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Title: Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution to implement the Old Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program as a one-year pilot From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council take the following action(s): 1. Adopt a resolution to implement the Old Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program (Attachment A) as a one-year pilot; and 2. Find the program exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Report Summary Beginning in early 2014, the City has been actively addressing parking and transportation challenges throughout the City using a strategic, multi-faceted approach focused on parking management, parking supply, and transportation demand management programs. Parking management strategies have included the development of a city-wide Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) ordinance, which was adopted in December 2014, as well as the establishment of a new RPP district in residential areas surrounding Downtown. The city-wide RPP ordinance includes parameters for neighborhoods to petition and request a new RPP district, or to request annexation to an existing RPP district. In August 2018, the City formally received a petition from residents of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood with a request to initiate an RPP program in their neighborhood due to parking intrusion from activities west of the train tracks. On March 27, 2019, the PTC reviewed the petition and prioritized it among other petitions received. On May 13, 2019, in reviewing a list of other recommendations related to the City’s overall parking programs, the City Council confirmed the prioritization of the Old Palo Alto RPP district and asked staff to proceed with the next steps of community City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 engagement and outreach. On July 30, 2019, staff conducted a community workshop at the Jerry Bowden Park to introduce the RPP concept to the Old Palo Alto neighborhood residents and property owners. As a follow up to the community workshop, staff sent out the required survey related to the proposed Old Palo Alto RPP. As of August 19th, staff received 55 returned surveys with 49 voting in favor of RPP implementation in Old Palo Alto as described in the survey. Consistent with the survey, the attached draft resolution would establish an RPP district within the following block segments: Block Beginning Block End Washington Avenue Alma Street Emerson Street N. California Avenue High Street Ramona Street Nevada Avenue High Street Ramona Street Ramona Street Washington Avenue Oregon Avenue Emerson Street Washington Avenue Oregon Avenue High Street Washington Avenue Oregon Avenue Within that area, two-hour parking would be allowed on-street during the hours between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, and only vehicles displaying a valid permit could park for longer during those hours. Residents would be eligible to obtain up to five transferable hang tag permits at a cost of $50 each. Residents may purchase up to 50 daily guest permits annually. Each guest permit costs $5. If the City Council approves the resolution as drafted, staff would order permits, arrange for sign installation, and conduct outreach with the goal to begin enforcement around November 1, 2019. The program is envisioned as a one-year pilot, and adjustments could be made based on experiences during that year. Background Per the Palo Alto Municipal Code § 10.50.050, residents may self-organize and request the formation of an RPP district in their neighborhood. The process, as outlined in the Ordinance, is as follows: (a) Form of Application. (1) The director shall establish a standard form for the application for the formation of a new RPP District, as well as a list of submittal requirements for use by interested residents. These requirements shall include a narrative describing the nature and perceived source of non-residential parking impact, as well as suggested district boundaries. The director shall also approve a standard form for use in demonstrating resident support for the application. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 (2) Residents shall initiate a request for establishment of an RPP District by neighborhood petition by completing the official application form. (3) Residents are encouraged to consult with the employers and employees thought to be the source of the parking impact as they develop their proposals. (b) Timing and Review of Applications. Each calendar year, the director of planning and community environment shall review all applications received prior to March 31st of that year to determine whether the RPP District criteria established in this Chapter are met. (c) Prioritization of Applications. Applications determined by the director to meet the criteria in paragraph (b) above shall be presented to the planning and transportation commission. The commission shall review the requests and recommend to the director which proposal or proposals should be given priority for review and possible implementation in the current calendar year. In making its recommendations, the commission shall consider the severity of non-residential parking impact, the demonstrated level of neighborhood support, and the staff resources needed to process requests. (d) Staff Review of Applications and Community Outreach. Once an application has been selected for council consideration during the current calendar year, staff shall promptly review the application, gather additional information and conduct a community outreach program. At a minimum the review process shall include the following: (1) The city shall complete parking occupancy studies to quantify the nature of the problem identified in the petition. Data shall be collected when schools in the Palo Alto Unified School District and Stanford University are in session, unless these institutions are irrelevant to the problem to be addressed. (2) Upon completion of the consultation and outreach process, the city attorney shall prepare a draft resolution containing the proposed boundaries and hours of enforcement. Staff shall undertake a survey of resident support within the RPP District. The results of this survey shall be included in and reported to the planning and transportation commission and the city council. (e) Planning and Transportation Commission Review. Staff shall bring the proposed RPP District to the planning and transportation commission no later than September of the calendar year in which consideration began. The commission shall review the draft resolution at a noticed public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council regarding the RPP District. This recommendation may include proposed modifications of the boundaries. The commission's recommendation shall be forwarded to the city council no later than September 30th. As of the March 31 petition deadline, staff had received a petition from the Old Palo Alto neighborhood for a resident-only parking program. College Terrace is the only other resident- only parking program. Residents noted parking overflow on weekdays and attributed the parking impacts to employees of neighboring businesses, employees from nearby office buildings, and Caltrain commuters. Residents also noted safety concerns which impacted bike routes in the neighborhood. Staff presented this petition, along with two others, to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on March 27, 2019 for prioritization, as required in the city-wide RPP City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 ordinance. The PTC voted 5-0-2 to prioritize the Old Palo Alto neighborhood for further data collection and program design. On April 16-18, the City’s Parking Operations Lead conducted parking occupancy surveys during three time periods: 9:00 am - 10:00 am, 12:00 - 1:00 pm, and 3:00 - 4:00 pm. The survey area was bounded by Alma St, Santa Rita Avenue, Bryant Street, and Oregon Avenue. In the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, the survey documents the highest average occupancy rates over 75% on the following blocks: • 2200 – 2300 High Street • 220 - 2300 Emerson Street • 100-200 N. California Avenue • 100 – 200 Nevada Avenue The data shows high occupancy on the blocks closest to the California Avenue underpass. This high occupancy begins in the morning and continues through mid-day, only decreasing in the evening. Overall, the mid-day period appears to have the most demand for parking, as the majority of the adjacent streets within the surveyed area are at or above 50% occupancy at this time. On the evening of July 31,2019 staff convened a community workshop in the neighborhood at Jerry Bowden Park to introduce the concept of the Old Palo Alto RPP program to neighborhood residents and property owners. Staff presented information on the city-wide RPP ordinance, parameters of the existing RPP districts and gathered feedback from attendees on the conceptual Old Palo Alto RPP program. Feedback varied, but some of the key topics included: • Number of resident parking permits per household • Types and prices of resident parking permits • Opt-in procedures for connecting blocks • Implementation schedule On August 6, 2019 staff mailed out 93 surveys to all residential properties and property owners within the proposed RPP district. The surveys were due back to the City by the end of the day on August 19, 2019. As of August 19, 2019, staff received 55 returned surveys with 49 voting in favor of RPP implementation as described in the survey. The surveys were one per household. The RPP program design elements included in the mail survey are listed below: • Permits would be required to park any vehicle on-street in excess of two (2) hours Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. • Households within the Old Palo Alto RPP district (red areas) would be eligible for five (5) annual hang tag permits at the cost of $50 each. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 • Residents could also purchase up to 50 transferable one-day permit hangtags per year for $5 each. The transferable hangtags may be used on any vehicle, including household visitor vehicles. Table 1 contains the results of the mail surveys. Table 1: Results of Old Palo Alto RPP Program Mail Survey Area To t a l Ma i l e d Ou t To t a l Re t u r n e d YE S Re s p o n s e NO Re s p o n s e No t Re t u r n e d YE S Re s p o n s e Ra t e To t a l Re t u r n e d Ra t e Total 93 55 49 6 38 89% 59% Discussion Staff used the results of the initial data collection and the community workshop to begin drafting the Old Palo Alto RPP program structure. Important elements considered included the following: • What areas should be included in the RPP district? • During which hours should the RPP program be enforced? How should enforcement be accomplished? • What types of resident parking permits should be issued, how much should they cost, and what quantity will each household be permitted to purchase? • Should the RPP program include eligibility areas to the north and east or should it be assumed that these neighborhoods would be part of future RPP programs? • Given the overall RPP program recommendations from the Municipal Resource Group (MRG) report, how can this RPP program be initially built to be more sustainable, easier to administer, and not in conflict with any of the report recommendations? District Boundaries Staff recommends the following block segments for the Old Palo Alto RPP: Block Beginning Block End Washington Avenue Alma Street Emerson Street N. California Avenue High Street Ramona Street Nevada Avenue High Street Ramona Street Ramona Street Washington Avenue Oregon Avenue Emerson Street Washington Avenue Oregon Avenue High Street Washington Avenue Oregon Avenue All streets within these boundaries should be part of the Old Palo Alto RPP district and all households within these blocks should be eligible for resident parking permits. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 While the petition submitted by residents in August 2018 included an area bounded by Alma Street, Santa Rita Avenue, Bryant Street, and Oregon Avenue, staff believes the initial RPP district will include areas with the highest parking intrusion. This decision was reached after discussing various other scenarios with residents and stakeholders. Staff also believes it is necessary to make eligible (blue) connecting adjacent blocks for annexation during the pilot phase of the program. Figure 1: Proposed Old Palo Alto RPP District Boundaries City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Source: Palo Alto Office of Transportation, August 2019 Enforcement Hours The proposed Old Palo Alto RPP hours are Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm. Old Palo Alto RPP parking permits would be required to park any motor vehicle on-street in excess of two (2) hours during these enforcement hours. Resident Parking Permits Staff recommends that all Old Palo Alto RPP district households should be eligible for five (5) annual resident parking permit hang tags at a cost of $50 each. Up to 50 transferable one-day resident parking permit hangtags per year for $5 each. The transferable resident parking permit hangtags may be used on any vehicle, including household visitor vehicles. Eligibility Areas Staff recommends the establishment of Eligibility Areas for the Old Palo Alto RPP program. Eligibility Areas are streets just outside of the designated RPP district that can administratively opt into the program when their blocks begin to experience increase parking occupancy. This allows the program to expand quickly to address spillover from the designated RPP district. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Old Palo Alto RPP Resolution The draft Old Palo Alto RPP resolution is included as Attachment A. It provides for implementation of the Old Palo Alto RPP program as a one-year pilot by enacting the following measures: • Establishes Old Palo Alto RPP District boundary (map is included as Attachment B) • Permits would be required to park any vehicle on-street in excess of two (2) hours Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. • Households within the Old Palo Alto RPP district (red areas) would be eligible for five (5) annual hang tag permits at the cost of $50 each. • Residents could also purchase up to 50 transferable one-day permit hangtags per year for $5 each. The transferable hangtags may be used on any vehicle, including household visitor vehicles. Policy Implications The following Comprehensive Plan goals, programs and policies are relevant to the implementation of the Old Palo Alto RPP program: POLICY T-2: Consider economic, environmental, and social cost issues in local transportation decisions. POLICY T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts. PROGRAM T-53: Discourage parking facilities that would intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods. Resource Impact Costs associated with establishment of a new RPP district will include those associated with installing signs, ordering/printing permit stickers and hangtags, providing permit fulfilment through a website, associated customer service, and increased parking enforcement. Staff is working on an estimate of these costs, which will be available with any necessary contract amendments for the City Council’s consideration. This program will not be a cost recovering program. Environmental Review City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 This program is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this program may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed resolution will have a minor impact on existing facilities. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments See the background section above and the website links provided for details on the community workshops and other outreach. Next Steps The City Council is expected to consider adoption of the attached resolution at their meeting on September 16, 2019 and will consider the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendation. If the Council adopts the resolution on September 16, 2019, staff expects that the program could be in place and ready for enforcement around November 1, 2019. Report Author & Contact Information PTC1 Liaison & Contact Information Chantal Cotton Gaines Acting Chief Transportation Official Rachael Tanner, MCP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2572 (650) 329-2167 Chantal.Gaines@CityofPaloAlto.org Rachael.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A - Draft Old Palo Alto RPP Program Resolution (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing the Old Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking District (RPP) R E C I T A L S A. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes the establishment, by city council action, of permit parking programs in residential neighborhoods for residents and other categories of parkers. B. On December 15, 2014, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 5294, adding Chapter 10.50 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which established the city-wide procedures for (RPP) districts in the city. C. On March 27, 2019, the Planning and Transportation Commission prioritized Old Palo Alto for Residential Preferential Parking program implementation. D. In August 2019, a stakeholders’ group comprised of Old Palo Alto residents met and made its recommendations to the City on the particular rules to be applied to the Old Palo Alto RPP District. E. On August 28, 2019, the Planning and Transportation Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed Old Palo Alto residential preferential parking program. F. It is the goal of the City to reduce the impacts of non-resident overflow parking from the commercial areas on the surrounding neighborhoods. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The criteria set forth in Section 10.50.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code for designating a Residential Preferential Permit Zone have been met as follows: A. That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents in that based on observation there are few available parking spaces available midday, while the streets are relatively unoccupied at midnight thus demonstrating the parking intrusion is largely by nonresidents. B. That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent intervals, either daily or weekly, in that the parking intrusion is most severe during daytime hours during the regular workweek. C. That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area of the District create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life in that based on information from residents and other city departments the vehicle congestion is interfering with regular activities. D. Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical in that the City has implemented a series of alternative parking strategies in the past and concurrently and there is still a shortage of parking available. 2 SECTION 2. Definitions. A. “Dwelling Unit” shall have the same meaning as it is defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.50.020. B. “Old Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking Program District” or “District” shall be that area as shown in Exhibit A to this Resolution. SECTION 3. Parking Restrictions within the District. A. Two-hour Parking Limit and No Re-parking. In the areas within the District listed in Table 1, no person shall park a vehicle adjacent to any curb for more than two hours. Re- parking a vehicle more than two hours after initially parking on the same day in the District is prohibited. These restrictions shall be in effect Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, except holidays as defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.08.100. Vehicles properly displaying a valid Parking Permit as described in Section 4 of this Resolution are exempt from these restrictions. TABLE 1 STREET BLOCKS Washington Ave. Alma St. to Emerson St. North California Ave. High St. to Ramona St. Nevada Ave. High St. to Ramona St. Ramona St. Washington Ave. to Oregon Ave. Emerson St. Washington Ave. to Oregon Ave. High St. Washington Ave. to Oregon Ave. B. Exempt vehicles. Vehicles exempt from parking restrictions as described in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.50.070(d) are exempt from the restrictions in this section. SECTION 4. Parking Permits. A. Resident Parking Permits. The City may issue Resident Parking Permits to residents of dwelling units within the District. Resident Parking Permits shall be subject to the following regulations: a. Duration. Resident Parking Permits shall be available in the form of annual permits and one-day permits. b. Form of Permit. The City may issue Resident Parking Permits in any form it deems practicable, including hangtags. c. Maximum Number of Permits per Dwelling Unit. Each dwelling unit within the District shall be limited to five Annual Resident Parking Permits at any given time. These permits may be used by residents or guests within the District. d. Daily Resident Parking Permits. Each dwelling unit shall be limited to 50 Daily Resident Parking Permits annually. These permits may be in the form of scratcher 3 hangtags, an online issuance system, or such other form as the City determines. The permit will state the date through which it is valid. SECTION 5. Fees. The fee for Parking Permits in the District shall be set by the City’s Municipal Fee Schedule Resolution. SECTION 6. Existing Parking Restrictions. In the event City staff should, at a later time, discover conflicting parking restrictions within the District that conflict with the restrictions of this resolution, but are not expressly rescinded, the RPP restrictions of this resolution shall control. However, existing parking restrictions indicated by painted curbs and implemented pursuant to Vehicle Code section 21458 are not superseded by this Resolution and remain in effect. SECTION 7. CEQA. This Resolution is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this resolution may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed resolution will have a minor impact on existing facilities. SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. Enforcement shall commence, pursuant to Chapter 10.50 of Title 10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ __________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: _______________________ ___________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ Chief Transportation Official 4 EXHIBIT A Old Palo Alto RPP District Old Palo Alto RPP District in Red RPP Eligible Blocks in Blue Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 10341) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/28/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 874 Boyce Avenue: Code Text Amendment and Preliminary Parcel Map With Exceptions Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 874 Boyce [18PLN-00030]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of An Ordinance to Amend Title 21, Chapter 20 to Allow for Creation of a Flag Lot Where the Residence on the Subject Lot to Be Subdivided Would be Protected Under a Historic Covenant as Well as Recommendation for Approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map With Exceptions to Subdivide One Lot to Create Two Lots. The Exceptions Are to Allow for A Narrower Front Lot Than Is Allowed Within the R-1 Zone District and To Allow for the Easements Serving the Rear Lot to be Greater Than 100 Feet. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Protection of the Environment) and 15332 (Infill Development). Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following actions: 1. Recommendation to the City Council that the project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Protection of the Environment) and 15332 (Infill Development). City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 2. Recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed ordinance amending Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land), Chapter 21.20 (Design), Section 21.20.301 (flag lots) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code included in Attachment B. 3. Recommendation to the City Council for approval of the Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions based on findings and subject to conditions of approval included in the Draft Record of Land Use Action included in Attachment C. Report Summary The proposed project includes a request for a Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions to subdivide an existing residential parcel located at 874 Boyce into two lots. The existing parcel at 874 Boyce is 12,403 sf and the resulting lots would be 6,090 sf and 6,000 sf. The proposed map includes an adjustment to the lot line between the subject site and the adjacent 872 Boyce. The owner of 874 Boyce would give 313 square feet (sf) of property to 872 Boyce, as discussed further below. This adjustment requires a request for a map exception to allow for the resulting lot at 874 Boyce to be 47.42 feet wide along the frontage. This width is less than the minimum width allowed in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance for lots within the R-1 Zone District. In addition, the applicant requests an exception for the proposed length of the access easements. Title 21, Chapter 21.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code currently does not allow for the creation of a flag lot in the R-1 zone district, except when an existing residence on the new (rear) flag lot would have a recorded preservation covenant. The proposed project includes a Category 4 historic resource on the existing parcel, but the historic structure would be on the street-fronting lot rather than the proposed flag lot. The proposed ordinance would revise PAMC Chapter 21.20.301, allowing an owner to create a new flag lot in instances where the project would include recordation of a historic preservation covenant for the historic resource located on the resulting street fronting lot, rather than on the flag lot. Background Project Information Owner: Christopher and Ximena Loops Architect: Leopold Design Civil Engineer: L Wade Hammond, Licensed Land Surveyor Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 874 Boyce Avenue (880 Boyce Avenue would be assigned to the proposed rear parcel) Neighborhood: Crescent Park Lot Dimensions & Area: Two lots proposed (6,000 sf and 6,090 sf) Housing Inventory Site: No Flood Zone Yes; AH34.9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes; an oak tree on the rear lot would be preserved Historic Resource(s): Yes; 874 Boyce is a Category 4 contributing building; adjacent 872 Boyce is protected by covenant and is a Category 4 contributing building. The two buildings are considered “sister” residences. Existing Improvement(s): 874 Boyce is a two story home built in 1826, the rear of the parcel is vacant Existing Land Use(s): Single family residential use Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Single Family Residential Special Setbacks: None Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Aerial Map Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Comp. Plan Designation: Single Family Residential Context-Based Design: Not applicable Downtown Urban Design: Not applicable SOFA II CAP: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes; within a residential district Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: June 14, 2018 Study Session Staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65432 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/local-tv/watch-now/ April 26, 2018 Study Session staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64686 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-46-2-3-2/ City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 The HRB held two study sessions to discuss the proposed project. The original application varied from the current proposal. The applicant’s current proposal does not include any physical changes to the existing residence at 874 Boyce. No design is proposed for a new residence on the new flag lot. However, the HRB was supportive of the concept of subdividing the historic property to retain the existing historic resource via recorded covenant. Any future modifications to 874 Boyce or on the new flag lot would be subject to the restrictions identified within a historic preservation covenant to be recorded on the site. ARB: None Project Description The applicant proposes a Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions as well as a Text Amendment to Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 21 to allow for the subdivision of an existing 12,403 sf lot into two lots, one of which would be a flag lot. The subject parcel, at 874 Boyce, would become a 6,090 sf lot and the new flag lot would become a 6,000 sf lot. As part of the project, 313 sf of the existing lot would be gifted to the adjacent property at 872 Boyce. The gifted area would accommodate a 12 foot wide access easement that would run from the public right-of-way, through 872 Boyce, to the existing flag lot at 876 Boyce. A location map is provided in Attachment A and the proposed Preliminary Parcel Map is included in Attachment H. There are several components to the proposed project. These include an Ordinance amending Title 21, Chapter 20; a preliminary parcel map with exceptions; revisions to existing easements; and a historical preservation covenant. Ordinance to Amend Title 21, Chapter 21.20 Chapter 21.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) only allows for the creation of a flag lot in instances where there is a historic residence that will be preserved on the flag lot to be created. There is a Category 4 (contributing) historic structure located at 874 Boyce; however, it is located towards the street frontage rather than on the flag lot to be created. The proposed text amendment would allow the creation of a flag lot in instances where the existing historic structure on the resulting front parcel would have the protection of a historic preservation covenant. Specifically, the ordinance in Attachment B amends the code as follows in strikeout and underline: 21.20.301 Flag Lots (a) The director of planning may approve, pursuant to a preliminary parcel map, not more than one flag lot, as defined in Title 18 of this code, under the following conditions: (1) The flag lot shall be used only for single-family residential use; City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 (2) The flag lot shall meet all of the requirements of the zone district within which it is located and, in addition, shall have an area which exceeds the lot area requirement of the zone district by not less than twenty percent exclusive of any portion of the lot used for access to a public street., except when the flag lot to be created contains a residence with recorded preservation covenants, where the flag lot area is not required to exceed the lot requirement of the zone district and no request for nor approval of exceptions to said standards shall be required; and (3) Access from the flag lot to a public street shall not be over an easement but over land under the same ownership as the flag lot. Such access shall have a minimum width of fifteen feet and shall have a paved way not less than ten feet in width., (4) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if except whenthe flag lot or adjacent lot to be created contains a residence with recorded preservation covenants, where the flag lot area is not required to exceed the lot requirement of the zone district and the flag lot access may be over an easement or land under the same ownership, the access shall have a minimum width of twelve feet for a maximum length no more than 100 feet, and shall have a paved way not less than ten feet in width, and no request for nor approval of exceptions to said standards shall be required. (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the creation of flag lots, as defined in Title 18 of this code, shall be prohibited in the R-1 single-family residence district, and no exceptions shall be granted therefore; provided, however, that: (1) Flag lots may be created in the R-1 zone district pursuant to Title 18 as long as a the residence thereon has a recorded preservation covenant is recorded for a historic resource located on the flag lot or on an adjacent lot to be created; and (2) Flag lots in the R-1 zone district shall comply with the requirements stated in subsection (a), except that smaller lot areas may be approved pursuant to Section 18.12.140 of Title 18. (3) Flag lots validly existing in the R-1 district as of the effective date of said prohibition shall, nonetheless, be recognized as legal lots for purposes of this Title 21 only. Development of such existing flag lots shall be subject to all applicable provisions of Title 18 of this code as of the date of any such proposed development. Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions The preliminary parcel map would subdivide the existing parcel located at 874 Boyce (APN 003- 25-039) into two parcels. The proposed map includes a request for two exceptions: (1) An exception to allow for the street fronting lot at 874 Boyce to be 47.42 feet wide. A 60-foot lot width is normally required in the R-1 (single family residential) Zone District; and (2) An exception to allow for the length of the required access easement to extend 128.05 feet. Where a historic preservation covenant is recorded, PAMC Chapter 21.20.301(a)(3) states that no exception is required for an access easement of up to 100 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 feet; staff interpret this section to allow a longer easement length to be granted through an exception process. These two design exceptions are necessary to accommodate the required access easements for the adjacent and proposed flag lots. The easements would not impact either of the existing historic residences or associated features (e.g. existing landscaping, fencing, or walkways) at 872 or 874 Boyce. Easements Currently there is a 17-foot-wide access easement shared between the three existing lots (874, 872, and 876 Boyce). The applicant proposes to abandon the existing shared easement as part of this proposed map, and create new easements. New easements would include: • A 12-foot-wide access easement at 872 Boyce for access to the existing flag lot (876 Boyce), and • A 12-foot-wide access easement at 874 Boyce for access to the new flag lot. The applicant proposes to two separate access easements to avoid creation of a “private street.” In accordance with PAMC Chapter 21.20.240 (b)(4), if a single easement serves more than one lot at the rear, it is required to meet the design requirements of a private street. The code requires that private streets be deducted from the gross lot area when determining floor area ratio (FAR) allowances. This deduction would impact the adjacent historic residence at 872 Boyce, resulting in a non-compliance (the existing home would exceed the FAR maximum). In addition, the two parcels to be created could not both meet the minimum lot size requirements. By creating two separate easements, each serving a single lot at the rear, the applicant would avoid the restrictive impacts associated with a single private street. In addition, the applicant proposes a new 10-foot-wide public utility easement for the maintenance of utilities, running from the public right-of-way to the new flag lot. The existing utility easement at 872 and 876 Boyce would remain. Historic Preservation Covenant If Council approves the Ordinance and the Record of Land Use Action for the Parcel Map with Exceptions, conditions of approval would require the recordation of an historic preservation covenant. The covenant would apply to the existing residence at 874 Boyce and would protect this Category 4 historic resource in perpetuity. The adjacent property at 872 Boyce is also a Category 4 contributing structure; it is a “twin” residence to 874 Boyce because the buildings on these properties mirror each other. The 1985 updated Department of Parks and Recreation inventory form for the parcel, which is included in Attachment E, notes that this is “a pair of individually elegant and matched houses carefully placed to enhance the simple formality of their design.” The twin, adjacent home at 872 Boyce has a preservation covenant, recorded in conjunction with a subdivision where two homes existed. Protection of 874 Boyce would ensure the preservation of both “twin” houses in perpetuity. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are requested, and are subject to PTC purview: • Municipal Code Text Amendment to Title 21, Chapter 20: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.80.080. A request for a Text Amendment requires at least one public hearing before the PTC, which shall forward its recommendations to the City Council for final action. • Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and California Government Code 66474. PAMC Chapter 21.12.090 outlines the process for approval of preliminary parcel maps. Although staff may review and approve preliminary parcel maps, PAMC Chapter 21.32.020 requires the Commission review preliminary parcels maps when the project includes an exception. The Commission reviews whether the amended subdivision complies and is consistent with the applicable laws. These include the Subdivision Map Act (in particular Government Code 66474), Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and state law. Staff forwards the Commission’s recommendation to the City Council for final approval. The findings to approve a Preliminary Parcel Map are in Attachment C. In accordance with PAMC 21.32, Council may grant exceptions after recommendation by the PTC. The parcel map process documents the abandonment of existing easements, recordation of new easements, and recordation of the historic covenant. Analysis1 Following is staff’s analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable plans, guidelines, and regulations as well as relevant policy considerations. Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject property is located along Boyce Avenue adjacent to the three-way intersection of Seneca Street, Homer Avenue, and Boyce Avenue. Adjacent structures are primarily two-story residences; however, there is a mix of single-story and two-story residences throughout the neighborhood. As noted previously, the City’s Historic Inventory identifies both the residence at 874 Boyce and the adjacent residence at 872 Boyce as Category 4 (contributing) historic structures. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommended action. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 The proposed project is located within the single-family residential land use designation. The project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan as detailed in the Draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment C. In particular, the project would encourage historic preservation and would allow for the development of an additional residential unit. These outcomes are encouraged under the Land Use and Community Design Element and Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, respectively. There are no other plans or guidelines applicable to the subject property. Municipal Code Compliance The project complies with relevant titles of the PAMC, particularly Title 18 (Zoning); Title 21 (Subdivisions and other Divisions of Land); and Title 16, Chapter 49, (Historic Preservation), or is otherwise seeking, through the requested entitlements and approvals, permission to deviate from certain code standards in a manner that is consistent with the Municipal Code. Title 18, Zoning, Compliance3 The subject property is located within the R-1 (single-family residential) zone district. A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards is reflected in the summary table provided in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with the zoning ordinance except with respect to the proposed width of the parcel at 874 Boyce. PAMC Chapter 18.12.040 identifies development standards within the R-1 Zone District and requires a 60-foot width for parcels within this district. The requested exception would allow for the width of the parcel at 874 Boyce to be approximately 47.5 feet where the existing parcel is 50 feet wide and the standard is 60 feet. As described above, this exception would allow for the gift of 313 sf of land for an access easement across 872 Boyce that meets the required 12-foot width (and 10 foot paved width) without making physical changes to that historic property, which is under an existing preservation covenant. The existing parcel at 874 Boyce is 12,403 sf and the resulting lots would be 6,090 sf for the new lot fronting the street and 6,000 sf for the new flag lot. The size of these parcels either meets or exceeds the minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 sf for the R-1 Zone District. Because the project is not requesting the use of preservation development incentives (e.g. a smaller minimum lot size for the resulting lots) the requirements outlined in PAMC Chapter 18.12.140 would not apply to the proposed project. Title 21, Subdivisions and other Divisions of Land, Compliance PAMC Chapter 21 includes standards for reviewing preliminary parcel maps. The proposed project is consistent with most requirements outlined in this title with respect to parcel maps. However, the project would not be consistent with PAMC Chapter 21.20.030 (flag lots), which outlines when flag lots are allowed to be created. Accordingly, the proposed project includes a request for a Municipal Code Text Amendment, as described above. In addition, the proposed project includes a request for an easement that is longer than typically allowed under PAMC Chapter 21.20.030. Therefore, the proposed map would include an exception to allow for a 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 128.05-foot long easement, where only a 100-foot long access easement is allowed. With approval of the proposed ordinance in Attachment B to amend the Code, and approval of the preliminary parcel map with exceptions, the proposed project would comply with Title 21 of the Municipal Code. Title 16, Chapter 49, Historic Preservation Ordinance, Compliance The proposed ordinance is consistent with the original intent for a subdivision incentive for historic preservation; to help preserve historic resources which could otherwise be demolished. The City’s historic ordinance (PAMC 16.49) does not otherwise offer protection for Category 4 homes located outside the Downtown or Professorville Historic District. The proposed project would preserve this Category 4 resource in perpetuity while also allowing for construction of an additional dwelling unit. A draft of the proposed covenant is currently being prepared and would be required prior to Council approval. Staff anticipates the proposed covenant will be similar to that recorded for the adjacent parcels at 872 and 876 Boyce. The covenant, at minimum, will require the property at 874 Boyce be maintained in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and would require that any new construction on this lot or on the new flag lot be compatible with the existing historic structure. Construction on the new flag lot would need to meet the City’s requirements for development of a flag lot, which restricts development to a single-story structure. The owner would record the covenant prior to recording the parcel map. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The proposed project would not conflict with any existing or future planned bicycle lanes. It is not located on a Safe Routes to School path. As noted previously, the owner proposes proper ingress/egress access in accordance with the design requirements outlined in Title 21 for access to the three existing units and the proposed flag lot. Consistency with Application Findings The proposed project complies with the applicable findings set forth in California Government Code Section 66474 under the Subdivision Map Act, and with the findings for map exceptions outlined in PAMC Chapter 21.32.020. In particular, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it supports the addition of a new dwelling unit. The City’s policies encourage housing units. The project would also preserve a historic residence in perpetuity, consistent with the city’s goals and policies for historic preservation. With approval of the allowed amendments and exceptions, the project would be consistent with the municipal code, as discussed above. The draft findings for the proposed exceptions are in Attachment C. The existing lot is unique in that the existing residence on the parcel is historic and the parcel is substantially larger than the allowed lot size for this zone district. This allows for the subdivision of the lot while still providing two parcels that meet the minimum lot size requirements. The project is designed to ensure that it would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity as discussed further in the findings. Environmental Review City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project has been found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 15308 (Protection of the Environment) and 15332 (Infill Development), as detailed in the draft documentation of the Notice of Exemption included in Attachment G. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. The Daily Post published a Notice of a public hearing for this project on August 16, 2019, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on August 19, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related public comments were received other than comments received through coordination with adjacent property owners. As noted, because the project affects the property at 872 Boyce in that a small portion of 874 Boyce would be gifted to the property, the property owner of 872 Boyce will be a signatory to the proposed map. A joint letter from the property owners at 872 and 876 Boyce is included in Attachment F. These neighbors have expressed support for the project provided that the project is designed such that no additional paving is required on the 872 or 876 Boyce properties and that the new access easement through 872 Boyce only affects land covered under existing easements (i.e. does not further restrict the 872 Boyce property). Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information PTC4 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, AICP, Planner Rachael Tanner, MCP, Assistant Director (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2167 Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org Rachael.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Proposed Ordinance Amendments to Title 21, Chapter 20 (DOC) • Attachment C: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX) • Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 • Attachment E: Historic Resources Inventory (DPR Form) (PDF) • Attachment F: Neighbor Correspondence (PDF) • Attachment G: Notice of Exemption (DOCX) • Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 003-25-039 003-25-060 003-25-059 003-25-065 003-25-073 28.3' 0' 11.8' 152.6' 88.8' 159.0' 1 8 .8' 88.8' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 148.0' 50.0' 148.0' 50.0' 148.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 66.7' 248.0' 50.0' 187.0' 16.7'61.0' 248.1' 50.0' 248.0' 50.0' 100.5' 80.0' 100.6' 80.0' 70.0' 120.1' 70.0' 15.0 100.0' 113.0' 50.0' 147.5' 80.0' 19.6' 70.0' 118.1' 118.1' 100.0' 63.0 100.0' 63.0' 100.0' 50.0 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 88.1 88.1' 100.0' 83.3' 61.0' 33.3' 187.0' 50.0' 248.0' 50.0' 187.0' 50.0' 187.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 136.5'111.5' 111.5'136.5' 50.0' 50.0'50.0' 50 . 0 ' 2 923 844 850 848 846 949 955 1020 888 1052 868 870 969A 886884 872 874 5 1058 1050 1040 10301010 876 963 BO YC E AV E N UE This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Historic Site abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Sidewalk Underlying Lot Line abc Easement abc Zone District Labels 0' 57' 874 Boyce CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2019-08-22 08:22:49Parcel Report with zoningdistricts (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 190822 sm 010 1 ORDINANCE NO. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 21.20.301 (Flag Lots) of Chapter 21.20 (Design) of Title 20 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Section 21.04.030 (Definitions) of Chapter 21.04 (General Provisions) of Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 21.04.030 Definitions (30) “Private Street” means any right of way, including vehicular access easements, not dedicated as a public street, which is used for vehicular traffic to or from two or more homes which do not have frontage on a public street or to or from one parcel which does not have frontage on a public street if the right- of-way or easement used for ingress or egress is more than two hundred feet in length. For the purpose of this section, "parcel" includes fee ownership, condominium, townhome or other ownership configurations. Private streets shall be excluded for the purpose of determining Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Minimum width of "private streets" shall be as defined in 21.20.240(b)(4). For the purpose of the provisions of 21.20.240(b)(4), the term "lot" includes fee ownership, condominium, townhome or other ownership configurations. SECTION 2: Section 21.20.301 (Flag Lots) of Chapter 21.20 (Design) of Title 21 (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 21.20.301 Flag Lots (a) The director of planning may approve, pursuant to a preliminary parcel map, not more than one flag lot, as defined in Title 18 of this code, under the following conditions: (1) The flag lot shall be used only for single-family residential use; (2) The flag lot shall meet all of the requirements of the zone district within which it is located and, in addition, shall have an area which exceeds the lot area requirement of the zone district by not less than twenty percent exclusive of any portion of the lot used for access to a public street., except when the flag lot to be created contains a residence with recorded preservation covenants, where the flag lot area is not required to exceed the lot requirement of the zone district and no request for nor approval of exceptions to said standards shall be required; and (3) Access from the flag lot to a public street shall not be over an easement but over land under the same ownership as the flag lot. Such access shall have a 190822 sm 010 2 minimum width of fifteen feet and shall have a paved way not less than ten feet in width., (4) Notwithstanding the foregoing, if except whenthe flag lot or adjacent lot to be created contains a residence with recorded preservation covenants, where the flag lot area is not required to exceed the lot requirement of the zone district and the flag lot access may be over an easement or land under the same ownership, the access shall have a minimum width of twelve feet for a maximum length no more than 100 feet, and shall have a paved way not less than ten feet in width, and no request for nor approval of exceptions to said standards shall be required. (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the creation of flag lots, as defined in Title 18 of this code, shall be prohibited in the R-1 single-family residence district, and no exceptions shall be granted therefore; provided, however, that: (1) Flag lots may be created in the R-1 zone district pursuant to Title 18 as long as a the residence thereon has a recorded preservation covenant is recorded for a historic resource located on the flag lot or on an adjacent lot to be created; and (2) Flag lots in the R-1 zone district shall comply with the requirements stated in subsection (a), except that smaller lot areas may be approved pursuant to Section 18.12.140 of Title 18. (3) Flag lots validly existing in the R-1 district as of the effective date of said prohibition shall, nonetheless, be recognized as legal lots for purposes of this Title 21 only. Development of such existing flag lots shall be subject to all applicable provisions of Title 18 of this code as of the date of any such proposed development. SECTION 2. The Council finds that the Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15305, because it is a minor alteration in land use limitations, and section 15308, because it is an action taken for the protection of historic resources. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 190822 sm 010 3 ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning and Development Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services Attachment C APPROVAL NO. 2018- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO LAND ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 874 BOYCE AVE APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP WITH EXCEPTIONS [FILE NO 18PLN-00030] SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On January 23, 2018, Leopold Vandeneyde on behalf of Christopher and Ximena Loops, applied for a Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions to subdivide an existing 12,403 square foot single-family residential parcel, in order to create two parcels (“The Project”). B. The project site is comprised of two lots (APN Nos. 003-25-039 and 003-25-073), located at 874 and 872 Boyce respectively. The subject property at 874 Boyce totals 12,403 sf (0.28 ac) and would be subdivided to create two parcels, which would be 6,090 sf and 6,000 sf. The property at 872 Boyce is currently 6,607 sf (0.15 ac) and would be expanded by 313 sf; therefore, the resulting lot would be 6,902 sf (0.158 ac). Single-family residential land uses are located adjacent to the lot to the north, south, east and west. C. Staff has determined that, with adoption of the proposed Municipal Code Text Amendment (Ordinance ______) amending Title 21, Chapter 20, Section 21.20.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and with approval of the requested map exceptions, the proposed project is consistent with all applicable standards of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. D. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and recommended approval on August 28, 2019 subject to conditions of approval. E. On ____________ 2019, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which evidence was considered and all persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the City Council’s policies and procedures. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to approve the preliminary parcel map with exceptions subject to the conditions set forth in Section 6 of this Record of Land Use Action, and subject to the adoption and effectiveness of the Municipal Code text amendment ordinance. F. On ___________2019 the City Council held a second reading for the Municipal Code Text Amendment, which is effective 30 days thereafter. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City and was found to be exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (Actions for protection of the environment) and Guidelines Section 15332 (In-fill exemption). SECTION 3. PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP FINDINGS. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Tentative Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474). The City Council cannot make these findings for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: The proposed Preliminary Parcel Map is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan (i.e. general plan). Specifically, the project site is designated as having a single family residential land use designation, which encourages single-family residential uses. The proposed project would allow for the development of another single family dwelling unit and would also preserve the existing historic structure under a historic preservation covenant. This is consistent with policies outlined, in particular, in the Housing and the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the proposed map is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: As noted above, the subdivision would allow for a single lot that currently exceeds the code requirements to be subdivided into two parcels in order to add a second single-family residence. The project does not currently propose any improvements other than minor paving at 874 Boyce in order to provide a 10 foot paved width. However, it is anticipated that with approval of the map, construction of single-story detached single-family residence would be a reasonably foreseeable future action. The proposed map is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, as outlined in Table 1. Table 1: Comprehensive Plan Consistency Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1.2: Limit future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The proposed map is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it would encourage in- fill development by allowing for the addition of a new residence in a single-family residential land use designation in an urbanized area. The only proposed improvements at the site at this time would be minimal paving to provide access to the new flag lot. It is anticipated that the rear parcel would be developed with a single-story residence; however, the design is not yet known. The historic preservation covenant will require that the new development be consistent with the historic character of the existing development. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. Policy L-7.1: Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic merit, including residences listed in the City’s historic resource Inventory, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places. The project would include recordation of a historic preservation covenant that would protect the existing historic residence at 874 Boyce in perpetuity. This is consistent with Policy L-7.1, which encourages the preservation of historic resources. Natural Environment Element Policy N-2.10: Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, such as native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees approved as part of a development review process and consider strategies for expanding tree protection in Palo Alto. The proposed flag lot includes a protected oak tree. With approval of the lot subdivision, a condition of approval has been added to ensure that future development would not significantly impact this protected tree. Housing Element Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available. The Housing Element encourages the development of housing, especially on underdeveloped sites. The proposed project would increase the housing density on this parcel by allowing for two single- family residences where only one is currently allowed in accordance with the zoning requirements. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: The site is well suited for the proposed development. The current parcel at 874 Boyce exceeds the maximum lot size requirements. The proposed project would split the lot in order to create two parcels that meet the area requirements allowed under the City’s single-family residential zoning. Access would be provided with minimal improvements at 874 Boyce and without any improvements at the adjacent residence at 872 Boyce. The proposed parcel at 874 Boyce would be slightly narrower than the width allowed under the R-1 single family residential zoning. However, many other sites in the vicinity have narrower lots than are typically allowed under the code (typically around 50 feet in width where a 60 foot width is required); therefore, the project, which would allow a parcel with an approximately 47.5 foot lot width, would be consistent with other development in the area and is physically suitable for this type of development. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The single family residential land use designation identified 1 to 7 units per acre as the typical density range. The project site is 0.28 acres and therefore two units on this site area would be consistent with the typical density range identified in the Comprehensive Plan land use element. Proper utility connections (e.g. sewer, water, gas) are already available for the site and proper access and parking can be accommodated. Therefore, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: The proposed preliminary Parcel Map and minor improvement to provide 10 feet paved width access to the new flag lot would not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no open space areas or natural features within the vicinity of the project site. The area is entirely urban in nature. The adopted Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes Map N-1, which identifies sensitive animal and plant species within the Palo Alto quadrangle, a large geographic area that includes the urban portions and portions along the bay and within the foothills, based on information in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Based on this map and the urban nature of the site, the subject property does not contain any habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species and has not historical supported any of these species. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: The proposed subdivision and the minor improvement to the drive aisle would not have the potential to cause a serious public health problem. The proposed use would not include use or storage of hazardous materials in large quantities and the site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to 65962.5 of the government code. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed Preliminary Parcel Map and minor anticipated improvements will not conflict with any public easements (e.g. utility or access easements) on the site. There are no public access easements on the property currently. There is one public utility easement that runs from the public right-of-way through 872 Boyce to serve the existing flag lot at 876 Boyce. This easement would not be affected by the proposed project. The proposed development would require a new public utility easement to provide utility services to the new flag lot. SECTION 4. MAP EXCEPTION FINDINGS. The project proposes exceptions to the design standards for lot width and for the length of a required access easement as depicted on Preliminary Parcel Map: • Lot width (47.5 feet) • Easement length (128.5 feet) 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property. The subject property is irregular in that it is narrower and much longer than the typical surrounding lot. The total lot area is 12,403 sf, which far exceeds the maximum allowed under the R-1 (single family residential) zone district (9,999 sf). In addition, the parcel includes a Category 4 historic resource that is considered a “twin” to the adjacent house at 872 Boyce Avenue. These special circumstances (the lot design and the historic structure) affecting the property limit the development that can occur on this site. 2. The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. The proposed exceptions would allow the property owner to utilize the full site area to its maximum potential without impacting the existing historic residence. Preservation of the existing historic residence and the addition of housing units are both highly encouraged under the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Without the approval of these exceptions, an additional single-family residence could not be constructed at the rear of the property and the historic residence would not be preserved. 3. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. The proposed exceptions would preserve the existing residence at 874 Boyce in perpetuity and allow for the development of a second single-story home on the new flag lot. The project has been designed to eliminate the need for any changes to the physical improvements at 872 or 876 Boyce and with only very minor changes (minor paving) at 874 Boyce to accommodate proper access to the new flag lot. The subject property is designed for single-family residential use. Therefore, the project would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory. 4. The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law. The granting of these exceptions does not violate the requirements, goals, policies or spirit of the law. These exceptions are allowed in accordance with the City’s municipal code. The proposed exception to the lot width would not affect the parcel’s compliance with the zoning ordinance (e.g. setback requirements) and the proposed exception to the easement length would not affect proper access to the site for regular vehicles or emergency access. The Fire Department would typically allow for a 150 foot access easement before additional protections are required and the proposed width is consistent with the code requirements. SECTION 5. PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP APPROVAL GRANTED. Preliminary Parcel Map approval is granted by the City Council in accordance with PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of this Record. SECTION 6. PARCEL MAP APPROVAL. The Parcel Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map prepared by L. Wade Hammond, “Preliminary 3-Lot Parcel Map 874 Boyce Ave, Palo Alto and 872 Boyce Ave, Palo Alto”, consisting of three lots, dated July 12, 2019, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of this plan is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division. Within two years of the approval date of the Preliminary Parcel Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Parcel Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]). SECTION 7. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. The Parcel Map shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Preliminary 3-Lot Parcel Map 874 Boyce and 872 Boyce,” stamped as received by the City on August 13, 2019 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. This project does not include approval of any physical improvements to the site other than minor paving for the access easement serving the new flag lot; therefore, no building permit is required at this time. Any future improvements to the site may require additional permits (e.g. building, grading, street work, etc. depending on the proposed improvements. 3. EASEMENT RECORDATION AND ABANDONMENT. As shown on the preliminary parcel map, the existing shared easement (Access Easement Doc #18998265) shall be abandoned and the two new access easements serving the existing flag lot at 876 Boyce and the new flag lot shall be recorded, as shown on the preliminary parcel map, immediately prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. 4. PROTECTED OAK TREE. The existing oak tree located at the northwest corner of the new flag lot (Proposed Parcel B), which is considered a projected tree under Title 8 of the PAMC, would not be impacted by the project as no construction activities are proposed. The oak tree shall be retained and protected as part of any future development proposal for Parcel B. 5. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COVENANT. Prior to approval of the Parcel Map, a historic preservation covenant shall be recorded for protection of the Category 4 Historic structure located at 874 Boyce in perpetuity. The historic preservation covenant shall include a requirement that the existing structure be preserved in perpetuity, that any future development at 874 Boyce comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and that any future development of the new flag lot be compatible with the historic structure located at 874 Boyce. 6. NOISE. In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.040 no person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than eight dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. The signage showing construction hours, as required under PAMC Section 9.10.040 shall include an emergency number for reporting noise concerns. 7. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 8. PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES. Parkland Dedication Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $63,104.04 shall be paid prior to the approval of the Parcel Map. Additional development impact fees may be required prior to approval of a building permit for any future development. 9. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING Prior to Public Works Engineering review of the parcel map, the following items must be shown on the map: 10. The Parcel Map shall include FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION statement. 11. The Parcel Map shall reference the NAVD 88 datum. 12. The Parcel Map shall include CITY ENGINEER STATEMENT, CITY SURVEYOR STATEMENT and DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT STATEMENT. 13. Provide electronic copies of the referenced documents submitted to Public Works. This includes the records of survey, maps, etc. 14. Include additional signature blocks for neighboring property owners as appropriate. 15. Include City Clerk signature as appropriate. 16. If applicable to this map provide a Beneficiary or Trustee and Acknowledgement statement on the map. 17. Please show all existing easements along with all proposed easements for both properties. Prior to parcel map recordation: 18. The City of Palo Alto does not currently have a City Surveyor we have retained the services of Siegfried Engineering to review and provide approval on behalf of the City. Siegfried will be reviewing, signing and stamping the Parcel Map associated with your project. In effort to employ the services of Siegfried Engineering, and as part of the City’s cost recovery measures, the applicant is required to provide payment to cover the cost of Siegfried Engineering’s review. Our intent is to forward your Parcel Map to Siegfried for an initial preliminary review of the documents. Siegfried will then provide a review cost amount based on the complexity of the project and the information shown on the document. We will share this information with you once we receive it and ask that you return a copy acknowledging the amount. You may then provide a check for this amount as payment for the review cost. The City must receive payment prior to beginning the final review process. Scope and Fee Letter from Siegfried will be provided separately. 19. Once the Parcel Map is approved by the City, submit wet signed and stamped mylar copy of the Parcel Map to the Public Works for signature. Map shall be signed by Owner, Notary and Surveyor prior to formal submittal. 20. Provide the electronic CAD file for the Map. Detail format of electronic submittal to be provided. Prior to any future building, grading or excavation permit issuance: 21. Parcel Map shall be recorded with County Recorder. A conformed mylar copy shall be submitted to the City. 22. Any existing building(s) will need to be demolished prior to recordation of Parcel Map. PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES DIVISION 23. The public utility easement from the public right of way and through Parcel A to serve Parcel B shall be recorded in coordination with the Parcel Map. Underground electric service, running inside the Public Utilities Easement, shall be provided prior to approval of any future building permit for the new flag lot. UTILITILES- WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER 24. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters unless otherwise approved by the Waste-Gas-Water Division. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees unless otherwise approved by the Waste- Gas-Water Division. 25. The applicant shall record the public utilities easement through the private driveway/area for facilities installed in private property as part of the Parcel Map. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. 26. Where public mains/services are installed in private land/P.U.Es for the home in the back parcel, the final map shall include the statement: “Public Utility Easements: If the City’s reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the PUE area, then it shall be the responsibility of the owner, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of the P.U.E Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of the City” 27. Any water service, gas service, or wastewater lateral not in use must be disconnected and abandoned. 28. Each unit shall have its own water and gas meter. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service, and wastewater lateral connection. 29. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 30. The contractor shall not disconnect any part of the existing water, gas, or wastewater mains except by expressed permission of the WGW utilities inspector and shall submit a schedule of the estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission. 31. Only City forces can work on the City gas distribution system. SECTION 8. TERM OF APPROVAL. Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions Approval. The project approval shall be effective on the effective date of the Municipal Code Text Amendment Ordinance, and shall be valid for a period of two years. In the event that a Parcel Map is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Development Services ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 874 Boyce Avenue Applications 18PLN-00030 Table 1: Compliance with R-1 Zone District Regulations Regulation Requirement Existing Proposed Minimum and Maximum Lot Area 6,000 – 9,999 sf Parcel A: 12,403 sf (Noncomplying) Parcel C: 6,067 sf Complies Parcel A (874 Boyce): 6,000 sf Parcel B (new flag lot): 6,090 sf Parcel C (872 Boyce): 6,380 sf Min. Site Width 60 feet Parcel A: 50 feet Parcel C: 50 feet Exception needed Parcel A: 47.42 feet Parcel B: 50 feet Parcel C: 52.58 feet Min. Site Depth 100 feet Parcel A: 248.05 feet Parcel C: 121.17 Complies Parcel A: 128.02 feet Parcel B: 120 feet Parcel C: 121.17 feet Received —0 APR 15 2019 Leopold Design DepartmentofPlanning &Community EnvironmentNeighborAcknowledgment March 6,2019 Subject:874 Boyce Avenue Subdivision Dear Claire Hodgkins, City of Palo Alto Project planner for 874 Boyce Ave. We understand that Chris Loops,the owner at 874 Boyce Ave.,has requested to create a separate lot in the back portion of the existing 874 Boyce property.This request affects the legal description of my current title report.This change is necessary for him to develop his property.The owner at 874 Boyce is going to gift a sliver of their property along the southern border of their lot to the 872 Boyce Ave.owners (the “Gifted Property”).The length of the Gifted Property will be 121.52’(i.e.,the entire length of the northern property line of the 872 Boyce property)and the width will be 2’7”,or such greater width as is needed to cause the conditions below to be satisfied. As a condition of approval,the property owners at 872 &876 Boyce will need to amend the legal descriptions of the prospective properties to now be separate flag lots. The scope of work includes the abandonment of the shared driveway I easements and the creation of a separate flag lot easement,for the 872 Boyce property.This requires the 872 Boyce property to file for a lot line adjustment and have a 10’-O”paved width and a 12’-O” wide access easement entirely on the 872 Boyce property and leading to the rear lot at 876 Boyce. In addition to the transfer of the Gifted Property,the amendment of the legal description of 872 Boyce would be subject to the following conditions:(1)no additional paving on 872 Boyce will be required to the south of the southern edge of the existing pavement,(2)the new access easement will covet only land that is either currently subject to the utility easement or is the Gifted Property (and so the southern edge of the new access easement will not be further south than the southern edge of the utility easement)and (3)the Allowable Floor Area available for future renovation projects for 872 Boyce will be increased by 30%x the square footage of the Gifted Property. 3tCttq Thank you, Leopold Vandeneynde,Architect 650-224-685 Ho eoyjiit Boyce Ave. P71J4’UtL— Date L,4//q Date // leopoIdleopolddesign.com Leopold Vandeneynde -650.224.6852 777 Enright Avenue,Santa Clara,CA 95050 Homeowner at 876 Boyce Ave. Notice of Exemption Project Title: 874 Boyce Avenue Project Location (include county): 874 Boyce Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (Santa Clara County) Project Description: Request for approval of an ordinance to amend Title 21, Chapter 20 to allow for creation of a flag lot where the residence on the existing lot to be subdivided would be protected under a historic preservation covenant as well as approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions. The exceptions would allow for a narrower front lot than is allowed within the R-1 Zone District as well as allow for an access easement that extends 128.05 feet where Title 21 only allows for easements to extend up to 100 feet. The project does not currently include development of the proposed flag lot; however, it is reasonably assumed that with approval of the proposed project, the resulting flag lot would eventually be redeveloped with a single-story residence. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Palo Alto Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Christopher and Ximena Loops, Property owners Exempt Status: (check one) □ Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268); □ Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); □ Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));  Categorical Exemption: 15308 (actions by regulatory agencies for protection of natural resources) and 15332 (in-fill exemption) □ Statutory Exemptions. State code number Reasons why project is exempt: The City has determined that the proposed 874 Boyce Avenue Project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Class 8 (Actions by regulatory agencies for protection of natural resources) and Class 32 (In-fill development projects). CEQA Guidelines §15308 reads: Class 8 consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment.” CEQA Guidelines §15332 reads: “Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section.” The attached information documents the project’s eligibility for these exemptions, including compliance with the specific Class 32 conditions and a summary of why the project falls under the Class 32 and Class 8 exemptions. It also confirms that no exceptions to the exemptions, as outlined in CEQA Guidelines §15300.2, apply to the project. Project Planner: Claire Hodgkins, AICP E-mail: Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org If filed by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? □ Yes N/A Planner September XX, 2019 Signature (Public Agency) Title Date Documentation of Project’s Eligibility for Class 8 and Class 32 Categorical Exemptions under CEQA The proposed project includes code amendments to Title 21 that would encourage the preservation of historic resources within the City. This would, in particular, allow for the project at 874 Boyce, which would include recordation of a historic covenant for preservation of a Category 4 historic resource. Therefore, the project would further protect the built environment with respect to historic resources, consistent with a Class 8 Exemption (Actions by regulatory agencies for protection of the environment). The project also meets the requirements for Class 32 exemptions. The proposed project would include a preliminary parcel map with exceptions to subdivide one residentially zoned parcel into two parcels to allow for development of a second residence. This project qualifies for a Class 32 exemption because it allows for in-fill development, encouraging higher density housing within an urban, heavily developed area that is appropriate for the proposed use. Below is a summary of how the project would meet the specific conditions under the Class 32 exemption. a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations The project site’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation is “Single-family residential”, which applies to residential neighborhoods primarily characterized by detached single-family homes, typically with one dwelling unit on each lot. The net density in single family areas ranges from one to 7 units per acre with population densities ranging from one to 30 people per acre. The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (i.e. general plan) land use designation in that it allows for an additional single-family residential unit to be constructed while still complying with the identified range of units and persons that would be allowed per acre. The addition of a new parcel in order to allow for an additional single-family residential housing unit is consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the Housing Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Because the subdivision would also include recordation of a historic preservation covenant for an identified historic resource, it is also consistent with the policies for historic preservation outlined in the Land Use and Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Class 32 Exemption Condition Complies? a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations ■ b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses ■ c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species ■ d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality ■ e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services ■ The site is zoned R-1 (single-family residential). The R-1 zone district is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings. The proposed project would create two parcels, both of which would meet the minimum lot size requirements, from a single parcel that currently exceeds the maximum lot size requirements; thereby addressing a legal noncomplying condition at the project site. The project includes a request for an exception to the 60 foot required lot width identified for lots within the R-1 zone district. The resulting lot would be 47.5 feet wide. However, most lots within this area are approximately 50 feet or less, including the existing lot. Therefore, the proposed lot width would be generally consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. With approval of the exception, in allowance with the code, the project would be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The proposed project is located on APN 003-25-039, which is a 12,403 square foot site (0.28 acres) that is located wholly within the City of Palo Alto’s jurisdiction. Surrounding uses are single-family residential. There are no open space areas or natural features (such as creeks) within the vicinity of the site. c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species As noted above, there are no open space areas or natural features within the vicinity of the project site. The area is entirely urban in nature. The adopted Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes Map N-1, which identifies sensitive animal and plant species within the Palo Alto quadrangle, a large geographic area that includes the urban portions and portions along the bay and within the foothills, based on information in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Based on this map and the urban nature of the site, the subject property does not contain any habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species and has not historical supported any of these species. d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality The proposed project does not include any proposed demolition or development and therefore could not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. It is reasonably foreseeable that, with approval of the subdivision, a new residence would be proposed on the newly created flag lot. In accordance with the R-1 zone district requirements, only a single-story residence could be developed on the flag lot. If a new house were to be developed, this would result in nominal impacts on traffic, noise, and air quality, primarily due to short-term construction related activities. Compliance with applicable regulations (e.g. basic dust control measures required by the BAAQMD and Title 9 construction noise requirements) would ensure that impacts remain less than significant. Traffic In accordance with the R-1 zone district requirements, only a single-story residence could be developed on the flag lot. The addition of one single-story residence at this property would not have the potential to result in any significant impact on traffic given the urban nature of this area and the nominal additional trips associated with one single-story detached dwelling unit. Noise No demolition is required or proposed given that the rear portion of the parcel is vacant and the existing residence on the site would be preserved under an historic preservation covenant. Construction of any new residence on this parcel would be required to comply with the regulations outlined in Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) with respect to construction noise, which stipulates maximum allowed decibels and restricts construction hours. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact on noise due to construction activities. Any HVAC equipment for the new residence would also be required to comply with the noise ordinance, which would reduce permanent impacts to a less than significant level. Water Quality The project is not located within the vicinity of any waterways; therefore the project would not alter the course of a stream or river. The project is located within a flood Zone, but any future development would be designed to meet FEMA requirements for construction of a residence within a flood zone. The future development would follow public works engineering’s required standard practices to control erosion and siltation during construction activities so as not to degrade water quality. Air Quality Future construction activities associated with development of the flag lot would be required to comply with BAAQMD requirements, which stipulate requirements for basic dust control to reduce PM10 and PM2.5. Construction of a single- story detached residence would not have the potential to exceed the daily thresholds for other criteria pollutants, including any pollutants for which the basin is in non-attainment. e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services The site is within an urban area that is already served by utilities and public services. Although new utility hook-ups would be required for any future proposed building, the site would be adequately served by existing infrastructure within the immediate vicinity. Exceptions to the Exemptions The City is aware that there are six categories or exceptions that preclude the use of Categorical Exemptions, as listed in CEQA Guidelines 15300.2 These categories, followed by the reason(s) the City believes they are not applicable to this project, are as follows: 15300.2(a) Location. Classes 3,4,5,6 and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located—a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact may in a particularly sensitive environment By definition, this exception does not apply to Class 32 or Class 8 Exemptions. 15300.2(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The project is a site specific subdivision project that would not be phased. The analysis above takes into account the reasonably foreseeable future action of constructing a new single-family residence on the resulting flag lot and this, in conjunction with the proposed project, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact. No other projects are planned for this site. 15300.2(c) Significant Effect. There are no unusual circumstances creating the possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA. There are no unusual circumstances affecting the project or property or anything unique about the location of the property or adjacent properties, which could result in a significant effect on the environment, such as the presence of archeological or cultural resources. The project complies with the comprehensive plan in an area where the proposed use is highly encouraged and, with approval of the requested exception, as allowed in accordance with the code, would comply with zoning. 15300.2(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. The project site is not visible from a scenic highway. I-280 and Skyline Blvd (HWY 35) are the only State scenic highways in Palo Alto and they are not visible from 874 Boyce Avenue. 15300.2(e Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The City has reviewed the Phase I ESA and the Cortese List on the Envirostor databased to confirm that the project site is not on a list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Sec 65962.5 of the Government Code. 15300.2(f)Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. For purposes of this section, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1, or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant. The proposed project is specifically designed to preserve, in perpetuity, the existing Category 4 historic resource on the site through recordation of a historic preservation covenant. Any future development is required to be compatible with this preserved resource. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. Attachment H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Commissioners. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Development Services Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “874 Boyce” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4666